Comment

Representation ID: 5369

Received: 21/08/2025

Respondent: Margaret Frostick

I&O_5740
HW 1: We agree.  

Comment

Representation ID: 5469

Received: 28/08/2025

Respondent: Penmar Farming Limited

Suggested policy HW1
I&O_5841
The requirement to produce a health impact assessment should be removed. It adds no value because it repeats information provided elsewhere in an application.

Comment

Representation ID: 5603

Received: 28/08/2025

Respondent: Andrew Malone

I&O_5975
Yes

Comment

Representation ID: 5766

Received: 28/08/2025

Respondent: Sharon Cope

HW1
I&O_6138
Agree

Comment

Representation ID: 5780

Received: 28/08/2025

Respondent: Pamela Manning

I&O_6152
Yes

Comment

Representation ID: 5797

Received: 28/08/2025

Respondent: Peter Folwell

I&O_6169
yes

Comment

Representation ID: 5832

Received: 28/08/2025

Respondent: Robin Gwyn

Q HW 1
I&O_6204
Agreed.

Comment

Representation ID: 6017

Received: 29/08/2025

Respondent: Andrew Rowe

I&O_6406
Retention of the Green Belt as a starting point will make a significant contribution to the communites Health and well being.

Comment

Representation ID: 6221

Received: 28/08/2025

Respondent: Paul Birtles

I&O_6619
HW1 Agree to the majority of the policy approach. If adopted, I fail to see how green belp land can be developed around the majority of communities, since this would result in adverse impact to existing housing, implicitly failing the "Proposals should also aim to promote high quality access to green space" test. Similarly, air quality considerations would negate any development in already congested areas, unless prior transport infrastructure upgrades are in place.  Great policy aspirations, but it does seem to contradict many other proposals in the consulation

Comment

Representation ID: 6593

Received: 29/08/2025

Respondent: Sandstone Ridge Trust

21 Health and wellbeing Question HW 1
I&O_7013
Unlocking the potential of the Cheshire Sandstone Ridge as a National Landscape strongly aligns with the requirement for policies and decisions that achieve healthy, inclusive and safe spaces by promoting high quality access to green space across the borough that will support opportunities to widen and strengthen the borough’s cultural, sport, recreation and leisure offer, and by safeguarding quality of life.

Comment

Representation ID: 6606

Received: 29/08/2025

Respondent: Councillor Lucy Sumner

I&O_7026
21 | HW1   Do you agree with the suggested policy approach towards health and wellbeing (HW1)?   🐝 Frodsham Neighbourhood Plan Evidence Base   FNHP highlights wellbeing through access to green space, Hob Hey Wood, Frodsham Hill, and safe walking/cycling links. Health and wellbeing must be written into policy as firm requirements, not aspirational guidance.   🌳 Ancient Woodland Hob Hey Wood   Hob Hey Wood is a vital local health asset, offering physical activity, stress relief, and biodiversity benefits. Protecting ancient woodland should be recognised as health infrastructure.   🌹 Labour Perspective   Labour nationally commits to tackling health inequalities, fuel poverty, and poor air quality. Locally, HOPE for Frodsham stresses healthy neighbourhoods, climate action, and green access.   🧠 Wider Context   Bourland (“Gray to Green Communities”) shows poor housing and car-dominated layouts worsen health. Gallent and Colenutt argue inequality is built into land/housing systems, so health policies must address systemic causes.   📌 Important Considerations Yes – but HW1 should explicitly commit to: Safeguarding ancient woodland and green space as health assets. Embedding climate resilience (air quality, flood risk, overheating) in health policies. Prioritising rural and deprived communities for new health facilities and safe active travel.

Comment

Representation ID: 6637

Received: 29/08/2025

Respondent: Will Holden

I&O_7057
yes

Comment

Representation ID: 6843

Received: 29/08/2025

Respondent: Philip Marshall

I&O_7279
Broadly yes – health must be embedded in all planning decisions. The policy could be strengthened by: - Requiring health impact statements for all major developments. - Embedding 'infrastructure first' for health facilities alongside housing growth.

Comment

Representation ID: 6848

Received: 29/08/2025

Respondent: Joanna Bell

I&O_7284
Protecting green belt is pivotal to health and wellbeing

Comment

Representation ID: 7557

Received: 21/08/2025

Respondent: Dr Tom Welsh

I&O_8044
I don’t see people with disabilities and other disadvantages figuring. It just seems to be something future developments are expected to provide, but no sign of a strategy to improve the existing built environment. Accessing countryside involves travel, and even when reached isn’t as easy to enjoy - overcrowded routes, lack of seats for older people to rest, etc.

Comment

Representation ID: 7635

Received: 26/08/2025

Respondent: The Coal Authority

I&O_8122
Our records indicate that within the Cheshire West and Chester area there are coal mining features present at surface and shallow depth including; mine entries and coal workings. These features pose a potential risk to surface stability and public safety. We note that existing Policy DM32 – Land Contamination and Instability is proposed to be incorporated into Policy HW1 Health and Wellbeing. We support the inclusion of the requirement to address land instability as part of new developments as set out within the draft policy HW1.

Comment

Representation ID: 7640

Received: 22/08/2025

Respondent: Edwina Crook

I&O_8127
I agree with the positions outlined in the Parkgate Society’s response, especially on open space provision, water infrastructure, and green infrastructure.

Comment

Representation ID: 9058

Received: 05/09/2025

Respondent: Environment Agency

I&O_9551
Our remit in relation to land contamination extends only to controlled waters, considerations relating to human health fall within the remit of the Council’s Environmental Health Officer. We advise the council that in the development of any site that appears to have been the subject of past industrial activity which may pose a risk of pollution to controlled waters, we recommend developers should: Follow the risk management framework provided in Land Contamination: Risk Management, when dealing with land affected by contamination   Refer to our Guiding principles for land contamination for the type of information that we require in order to assess risks to controlled waters from the site - the local authority can advise on risk to other receptors, such as human health Consider using the National Quality Mark Scheme for Land Contamination Management which involves the use of competent persons to ensure that land contamination risks are appropriately managed Refer to the contaminated land pages on gov.uk for more information Refer to ‘The Environment Agency’s approach to groundwater protection’

Comment

Representation ID: 9939

Received: 27/08/2025

Respondent: Emma Fletcher

I&O_10436
DM 31 - Air quality   I am very pleased to see air quality being given the concern it requires.

Comment

Representation ID: 9993

Received: 27/08/2025

Respondent: Bellway Homes Ltd (North West)

Agent: Savills (UK) Limited

I&O_10490
High quality developments can make a positive impact on health and wellbeing. Likewise, development proposals that are poor quality can give rise to adverse impacts on health and quality of life. The Issues and Options draft sets out the Council’s policy approach to health and wellbeing and confirmed that where it is considered likely that a proposal will result in significant environmental effects during the construction phase, a Construction Environmental Management Plan (CEMP) will be required. The document states that proposals should aim to promote access to green space across the borough that widen and strengthen the boroughs cultural, sport, recreation and leisure offer.  The Council’s approach to health and wellbeing is supported. The proposals for residential development at Chester Road, Kelsall will create wide-ranging benefits for health and wellbeing, and the application will be supported by a Health Impact Statement.

Comment

Representation ID: 10189

Received: 27/08/2025

Respondent: Northern Trust Land Limited

Agent: Savills (UK) Limited

I&O_10686
High quality developments can make a positive impact on health and wellbeing. Likewise, development proposals that are poor quality can give rise to adverse impacts on health and quality of life. The Issues and Options draft sets out the Council’s policy approach to health and wellbeing and confirmed that where it is considered likely that a proposal will result in significant environmental effects during the construction phase, a Construction Environmental Management Plan (CEMP) will be required. The document states that proposals should aim to promote access to green space across the borough that widen and strengthen the boroughs cultural, sport, recreation and leisure offer. The Council’s approach to health and wellbeing is supported. The proposals for residential development at Chester Road, Kelsall will create wide-ranging benefits for health and wellbeing and the application will be supported by a Health Impact Statement.

Comment

Representation ID: 10263

Received: 16/08/2025

Respondent: Dr Christine Wetherell

I&O_10760
From: Background to Urbanisation in Strategy 8 – Rural areas : Some pesticides, industrial chemicals, and components of sewage effluent are suspected to interfere with the functioning of the endocrine system, possibly having negative effects on the reproduction and development of aquatic life. Any new building will have some pollution from the activity unless the builders and sites are strictly controlled, and no concrete or other chemicals are put directly on the soil (apart from the building itself). All manufacturing of products carries a climate price – especially concrete.  New research  suggests exposure to some common  Pfas  or “forever chemical” compounds causes changes to gene activity, and those changes are linked to health problems including multiple cancers, neurological disorders and autoimmune disease. Pfas are a class of about  15,000 compounds  most frequently used to make products water-, stain- and grease-resistant. They have been linked to cancer, birth defects, decreased immunity, high cholesterol, kidney disease and a range of other serious health problems. They are dubbed “forever chemicals” because they do not naturally break down in the environment World at $1.5tn ‘plastics crisis’ hitting global health from infancy from old age – report (The Lancet) as they are laced with 16,000 chemicals which have been known to damage human health. The most vulnerable are the most at risk https://ablink.email.theguardian.com/ss/c/u001.Yw_JkLMEmFuifc_XG18IRyTNtZQ7fIEMgszcCSneHEAhzD0WUI17vwhqJTqDOvEG72TRoD_03tI1bGd8fJ-keK5RNbe4wAqDwfpvGQlb1nFQsrbB0YxUIMXFDIIYL133k_UVJh0u61jJ8lJonq1tUt7coDc4nVugg8uUMOnRd5E16i0MseFJFJxsqNX7Jp5L4WH04N2Rysne0vQtqPqlQ7bb_7AtFUiR8uS661yJuQWbZlpA1NM2muxqQeDyB9f622wlv-zKzPpRtKqmY8qTpjAU2BpNDqM_o1Zfn5zWt3AFfZCqklnxczImggPVdoQSzCrCcorAWYEa4WYgsLH0xnROgEVmLntRpK4fn6UdkUI/4iu/AHa8gO_NQ4W5sfUyDXId0Q/h68/h001._ChuzNL4m2aSV-AvqMp6fgVf0mJ1kPZ3NxOsL5_N_4U Less than 10% of the world’s plastic is recycled and more than 40% is stuck in landfill, polluting the soil, water run-off into rivers etc. The new treaty needs to produce positive results, though it may be difficult with so many of the oil and chemical interests lobbying against changes Forever chemicals or chemical pollution (PFAS), is a threat to the thriving of humans and nature of a similar order as climate change – almost all humans are found in nearly all humans tested; 80% of which are of ‘significant concern’. For instance, more than 3,600 synthetic chemicals are used in food preparation and packaging in human bodies.  There are somewhere between 40,000 and 350,000 in commercial use and production, and the environmental and human health effects of these including pesticides and plastics, leading to widespread contamination of the biosphere are not widely appreciated, though there is growing evidence linking chemical toxicity with effects ranging from ADHD, reproduction, immune problems, neurological, cardiovascular, cardiovascular, respirator, liver, kidney, metabolic systems and cancer.  More than 90% of the global population breathes air that breaches WHO pollution guidelines.  This danger is a threat comparable to climate change.  We just need to demand safe products. How microplastic fragments move through plants, insects, animals and humans: From household wastewater pipes (including laundry) ending up as sewage sludge which is spread on fields as an organic fertilizer across the US and Europe – inadvertently turning the soil into a huge global reservoir of microplastics – this then works its way up the food chain through insects, birds, mammals and humans (often due to our clothing) – which could remain in the environment for centuries. Spread on soil it weaves its way into the fabric of soil ecosystems, often consumed by worms mistaking it for leaves. Nearly 1:3 earthworms contain plastic as well as ¼ of slugs and snails.  Some worms shrink and die.  Birds ingesting polluted worms may have stunted growth and reduced fertility.  Animals who ingest plastics have problems with the liever, kidney and stomach Mites and nematodes which are some the tiniest lifeforms in our soil and help maintain the fertility of the land are also negatively affected by plastic Soil contains more microplastic pollution than the oceans – even though they are a major issue in our global waters Polyester and other fibres when excreted from animals or from dead animals or insects rotting down are washed back into the water systems and soils. Dry soil may be blown into the air. Even the most remote places on earth contain microplastics, including Arctic Ice Plastics fibres may be broken down over time into nanoparticles which can infiltrate plant roots, into their leaves and affect their ability to photosynthesise, eventually entering the human food chain Microplastics can journey around the world, reaching every part of our eco-systems. Since the 1950’s, humans have produced in excess of 8.3 tonnes of plastic – equivalent to the weight of one billion elephants – opting to live without it is almost impossible Megabusinesses need to take the most responsibility for plastic production and use, including oil companies. Methane pollution is a blind spot in emissions disclosures Ways to avoid PFAS Food packaging and non-stick cookware Store leftovers in glass, not plastic Drink filtered water Cut back on fast-foods Don’t put plastics in the microwave Check the source of fish, especially freshwater fish Plastics last for centuries and never degrade – and if they do – it is into dangerous microplastics. About 11m tonnes of plastic waste ends up being dumped in the world’s oceans annually – many float around for decades, ending up on our shores.  Fish and larger mammals often eat them in error, which kills them.  We under-estimate the damage these plastics do our environment, the health of the seas and our health.  Time to ban them – but the Global Plastics Treaty is making little progress. Governments across the world last year provided $80bn of subsidies to producers and processors of primary plastic polymers Millions of litres of oil is seeping into UK soil from ageing electricity cables most of which were installed in the 1950’s to 1970’s. Examples include in Southern England 3m litres (660,000 gallons) of oil spilt and in Edinburgh 24,000 litres spilt into local soils.  These seepages are seen as a huge problem for the environment and a contribution to major biodiversity loss – this has already been seen in Norfolk with trees seeping into the bodies of trees via the root system, destroying leaves.  If cables leak, they are simply topped up with more oil.  The damage to the soil is likely to last thousands, if not millions of years, yet there is little pressure for cables to be replaced, as it is not an issue which has been brought to public attention. New cables use biodegradable products, and when old cables are replaced, the companies said, they try and retrieve as much oil as possible

Comment

Representation ID: 11006

Received: 28/08/2025

Respondent: Weaverham Parish Council

I&O_11504
It should strengthen the consideration for access to health care e.g. Doctors surgery and Dentists etc, and where new or enlarged, facilities are required to provide access, these must be provided with in 2 years of completion of the development.
Option A - take forward current Local Plan Objectives

Comment

Representation ID: 11378

Received: 28/08/2025

Respondent: Frodsham Town Council

I&O_11876
Yes

Comment

Representation ID: 11695

Received: 28/08/2025

Respondent: CPRE Cheshire Branch

I&O_12193
In broad terms yes. The policy should specifically reference the health benefits of having access to the countryside, for example through public rights of way and bridleways and of having access to nature, in line with the emerging Cheshire and Warrington Local Nature Recovery Strategy.

Comment

Representation ID: 12136

Received: 28/08/2025

Respondent: Linda Knight

I&O_12650
I agree

Comment

Representation ID: 13137

Received: 29/08/2025

Respondent: Network Rail

I&O_13656
In relation to residential amenity, draft Policy HW 1 states that all proposals for new development will be expected to safeguard the quality of life for residents within the development and those nearby. Development will only be supported where it does not result in a significant adverse impact upon the residential amenity of the occupiers of existing properties or future occupiers of the proposed development. Draft Policy HW 1 also confirms that development which generates noise or is sensitive to it, will only be permitted where it does not have an unacceptable adverse impact on human health or quality of life. Draft Policy DS1 identifies that development should achieve a sense of place through appropriate layout and design, promote diversity and a mix of uses, and promote safe and secure environments and access routes. Development should also be sympathetic to heritage, environmental and landscape assets. Network Rail supports draft Policy HW 1 and DS 1 but recommends that an additional provision is added to the policies or their written justification to the effect that residential (or other forms of) development close to railway infrastructure should not restrict existing or likely future operational rail requirements. This is so that the operational requirements for the railway are safeguarded by ensuring that future development does not impact on the railway or the ability to carry out activities reasonably necessary for its ongoing operation. This will also ensure consistency with the ‘agent of change’ principle established in paragraph 200 of the National Planning Policy Framework (“NPPF”).

Comment

Representation ID: 13923

Received: 29/08/2025

Respondent: Canal & River Trust

I&O_14443
Question HW 1 Do you agree with the suggested policy approach towards health and wellbeing, as set out in HW 1 'Health and wellbeing' above? If not, please suggest how it could be amended? The Trust strongly welcome that the Local Plan places a key focus on the health and wellbeing of residents and promotion of health and wellbeing throughout the new Local Plan. Contribution of the Canal Network Our network within Cheshire West and Chester provides ready and easy access to nature and the green/blue outdoor space, particularly within urban communities, and opportunities to connect people to place, nature and each other, bolster physical activity and build social connections and a sense of belonging. The Trust would highlight the potential contribution that our network can offer to help disadvantaged communities benefit from its multifunctional benefits and help more people connect with, and benefit from, this free and accessible community resource. Within the context of  Natural England’s  ‘Green Infrastructure Framework’ (advocating the provision of green/blue space in new development) and the government’s Environmental Improvement Plan (advocating that the public should be able to access green space or water, within a 15-minute walk from their home) the Trust can evidence the benefit of the reach of our network (within 1km of our assets) to demonstrate the multifunctional health and well-being offer of our network to  its users and adjacent communities.  Our network, provides accessible green and blue space on the doorstep, where it can needed most and provide environments that can make a positive difference people’s lives; supported by evidence that spending time by water can make us all healthier and happier. A research initiative, Blue Health, found that access to urban blue spaces such as canals and rivers, resulted in significant improvements in wellbeing and mood for individuals walking through urban blue spaces. By way of background, the Trust has published our Impact Report which shows how individuals and communities are benefitting from using and engaging with our network of canals. Our network, is one of the UK’s largest free-to-access blue spaces, with 10.3 million users that visit regularly. It outlines that 85% of the UK population lives in an urban environment, and in a third of local authorities, more than 70% of the population is further than a 15-minute walk to a natural space. The annual social value being generated by our network and activities is £4.6 billion including £1.1 billion cost savings to NHS derived from active use of the waterways and the towpaths. Within this population, more than 60% of households (over 2 million households) experience wellbeing inequalities and 19% of residents are from ethnically diverse backgrounds. For communities suffering a deficit of green or blue spaces, poor wellbeing or socioeconomic disadvantage, these waterways provide vital free, and accessible space to use and enjoy on the doorstep. Suggested Policy Approach The promotion of health and wellbeing throughout the new Local Plan is reflected in this policy approach and it seeks to promote greater quality of developments including patterns, types and nature of such as well as restricting development that gives rise to significant adverse impacts on health and quality of life, in general conformity with the NPPF (paragraphs 96-102 ). The Trust has no concern with the combination of previous Local Plan policies (combining of Local Plan (Part 1) policy SOC 5 and Local Plan (Part 2) policies DM 2, DM 4, DM 29, DM 30, DM 31 and DM 32) subject to policy wording in HW1 being sufficiently robust to safeguard against harm from development by reason of any adverse impact on land stability, ground conditions, water or air quality, or by reason land contamination, or noise pollution, in the interests of safeguarding the environment and structural integrity of the canal network and waterway environs. The Trust would seek for the provisions within the current Local Plan policies of DM 2 - Impact on residential amenity and SOC5 – Health and Well being reflected in HW1, in the interests of environmental protection and safeguarding waterways, in the absence of another policy that seeks to protect against environmental harm.   In particular, the Trust would seek the retention of the following provision from SOC5 which ensures that each of these potential impacts, where there is a potential adverse impact on quality of life, is safeguarded against for both health and quality of life and residential amenity. Development that gives rise to significant adverse impacts on health and quality of life (e.g. soil, noise, water, air or light pollution, and land instability, etc) including residential amenity, will not be allowed. Development, during construction and the operational phase, in close proximity to waterways has the potential to adversely affect the structural integrity, water quality and surrounding environment of the waterway. It is important that potential adverse effects from air quality, water and land pollution, land instability, noise, and vibration, are safeguarded against in planning policy in the interests of safeguarding the canal network and its infrastructure within Cheshire West and Chester. This should relate to the users of the waterways as well as the infrastructure itself. The Trust would suggest that the following issues are of the utmost importance in any policy that seeks to safeguard against potential adverse impacts arising from ground, noise, water, air or light pollution, or land instability, as a result of development within the borough: Land Instability The impact of development upon land stability and the consideration of the suitability of development with regard to ground conditions are material planning considerations as set out in the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) and that the responsibility for securing a safe development in terms of land stability rests with the developer.. It is essential that structural integrity of the canal infrastructure is not put at risk as part of any development proposal, which could in the worst case scenario result in the failure of the canal. This is the subject of more detailed discussion in the National Planning Practice Guidance (PPG) which highlights the planning system has a role to play in minimising the risk and effects of land stability on property, infrastructure and the public by helping ensure that development does not occur in unstable locations or without appropriate precautions. We appreciate that the issue of land stability can be complex, however the NPPF is clear that planning decisions should ensure that new development is appropriate for its location in the context of avoiding unacceptable risks from land stability. The Trust request Local Plan policy ensures that development proposals would not have an adverse impact on land stability (during construction and for its lifetime) and for these provisions to be included in any Local Plan policy. This should include reference to sufficient information being provided to demonstrate that any proposal would be acceptable with regard to land stability. The PPG outlines that applicants should ensure that any necessary investigations are undertaken to ascertain that their sites are and will remain stable or can be made so as part of the development of the site and that any potential impact is capable of mitigation. A site needs to be assessed in the context of surrounding areas. The Trust consider that a policy should refer to how where a proposal may affect or be affected by contamination or land instability, at the planning application stage, developers will be required to provide a report which investigates the extent of the contamination or stability issues and the possible affect it may have on the development and its future users, and  the natural and built environment. This is on the basis that in most cases, development will only be deemed acceptable where it can be demonstrated that any contamination or land instability issues can be appropriately mitigated against and remediated, if necessary. Land contamination Any potential for land contamination affecting land, groundwater or surface waters (caused by previous use of the site, during construction and incident, or during operational phase) should be considered and safeguarded against in any policy. The planning process requires that any development proposal addresses any impact on land contamination matters through desk study, intrusive investigation/risk assessment and remediation/validation where required and the submission of a contaminated land risk assessment that is based upon the Contaminant (source) - Pathway - Receptor model to investigate contaminant linkage. The Trust request reference in the Local Plan to submitted assessments giving consideration to all potentially sensitive receptors, such as controlled waters, and where there is potential contaminant linkage to waterways and waterbodies. The Trust request for any policy to give consideration to the potential impact on adjacent environments during the construction stage of development and welcome the requirement to submit a CEMP. Noise & Vibration There is the potential for proposals to affect amenity of neighbouring uses by reason of noise and vibration, and Trust would seek for residential moorings to be considered as a receptor in assessments of noise and vibration in connection with development proposals. Canal boats can be receptors to noise being emitted from development sites, and possess an additional sensitivity to such sources due to a lack of noise insulation on a boat, and therefore may suffer amenity loss. As such where applicable, policy should consider all potential sensitive receptors, and take account of persons living on boats, where applicable, and that submitted noise assessments should reflect all sensitive receptors accordingly.   Agent of change principle Boatyards, chandlerys, marinas, and boating facilities serving the our network provide vital services to the canal network through providing maintenance, moorings and boating services. The location of these services, adjacent to canals, is necessary for their function and such facilities need to be available at frequent intervals across our network As referred to in this consultation document, the National Planning Policy Framework requires that decisions should ensure that new development can be integrated effectively with existing businesses and community facilities with the applicant (or ‘agent of change’) required to provide suitable mitigation before the development has been completed. Such boating facilities should be carefully considered to ensure that these important waterside facilities are not put at risk as a consequence of the introduction of new noise sensitive development giving rise to complaints.  The submission of noise assessments that fully recognise adjacent boatyards, boating and marina activities within its scope should be given consideration in policy, to inform the design and layout of any proposed development where appropriate, as it may be necessary for proposed development to mitigate against the impact on the proposed dwellings. Light Pollution   Pollution (Light) – Any policy should outline the importance of safeguarding against potential adverse light spill and light pollution from development over adjacent sites and in particular canal corridors and waterspace to prevent nuisance and protect wildlife habitat from harm. Specifically for canals, the Trust would welcome minimisation of light/light overspill from adjacent developments, in order to preserve the ‘amenity for nature’.  This is particularly important as the canals serve as nature pathways and habitats where light levels are generally lower, and there is opportunity for nesting/hunting/migration along the interconnected canal system.  Adjacent developments with significant light overspill may prevent the canal from being used as a nature pathway at the point it occurs and interrupts an ecological network.

Comment

Representation ID: 14307

Received: 29/08/2025

Respondent: Judith Critchley

I&O_14851
Yes

Comment

Representation ID: 14645

Received: 29/08/2025

Respondent: Andrews

I&O_15195
On Brownfield sites contaminated land should be assessed at various stages of the build.  Initital testing needs to be carried out across the site and not just at a couple of sites.  Needs to be stringent.